Dragonborn/Tiefling- which campaign setting?

[kennew142]

So why not change the base assumptions of what it means to be a gnome rather than ban them outright?

I don't like small PC races. I've never allowed gnomes in my games. I don't like them and none of my players (since 1980) has ever seemed to miss them. My upcoming 4e campaign will also exclude halflings. I will run it by my players first, but I don't expect any opposition.

BTW, I don't intend to use dragonborn either. Tieflings on the other hand are definitely in. I may be designing my own saurian/ophidian race that will available to PCs. If the dragonborn race is less 'draconic' than I suspect, I may change my mind - probably not.

My campaign is a little different from the core rules - always has been. I also do not allow half-elves or half-orcs (although players can play full blooded orcs with half-orc stats).

Saying that you have to allow a race from the PHB is the same as saying you have to use the gods from the PHB. I won't be doing that either.

I will say that I don not hand down rules from on high to my players. When I design a campaign world, I run all flavor and rules changes by the players. I've been posting weekly campaign previews since the 4e announcement. My players discuss it in our egroup and we make compromises together. My group has been playing together (more or less intact) since about 1990. Two of the group have been with me since 1980.

 

[mxyzplk]

Hi

Since Dragonborn and Tieflings are now part of the core-books, would anyone care to explain which campaign settings they will fit into? I mean - I have not heard about Dragonborn in the FR nor in a lot of the other settings. Does this mean that we will se a new setting with 4E, just as we had Eberron in 3E? One that totally encompasses the ideas of "points of light" and the two new races?

I don't know much about other settings except for FR, but could someone tell me if this fits well into Dragonlance, Eberron etc.... And if not - what do you think WOTC is up to with those new races? They are not going to add two new races without having a setting that is ideal for trying out the new stuff.

I think you just put more thought into it than WotC has.

 

[mxyzplk]

I'm pretty sure the Argonians are just lizards, not dragons. They didn't really do anything overtly "Dragonish"; they just lived in a swamp, were immune to disease/poison, and could breathe underwater.

Yeah, I guess I wonder why not just lizardfolk as the new race; they're certainly venerable? (Although don't I remember some 'Saurian' nonsense in FR at some point?) I mean, sure, Dungeons & *Dragons*, but I've never really understood all this dragon hysteria in 3e - kobolds are draconic, everything's a half-dragon or dragon disciple, sorcerers are from dragon blood, blee blee blee. I don't remember the rampant dragon fetishism in 1e/2e. Doesn't do anything for me. I prefer the Smaug/Flame kind of dragon, proud, isolated, strong - not the "bukakke over the whole Monster Manual" type.

 

[Stogoe]

I think you just put more thought into it than WotC has.

You don't have any basis of saying that, other than that some dude in Hungary said "They're in" and nothing else. You are almost certainly wrong. Wrongo Bongo.

 

[Ahglock]

Yes imagine my annoyance when they suddenly disappeared...

I remember they tried to reinsert Monks as a Kit. Not so great.

The complete Book of Humanoids gave us rules for Half-Orcs back.

Well near the end of 2e for greyhawk they brought back the monk class in the scarlet brotherhood supplement. The class was a sucky as the 3e incarnation, but the supplement was awesome. I think it was done by Sean Reynolds, the best designer I never want to meet.

 

[Ahglock]

At first I was unhappy, but I can probably do a quick mod for a rare race in my heavily modified Mystara setting the dinosaur people race from the hollow world. Which invaded the surface world and now large entrance/exits are scattered throughout the land.

But no dragonborn as is doubt I could fit it.

 

[Sonny]

Oh my god, that sounds so much worse.

I will however subscribe to the monkey magic method of birth.

Yeah, the meteor egg thing is pretty bad no matter how you slice it. So... what's the monkey magic method of birth? >_>

 

[rounser]

I don't remember the rampant dragon fetishism in 1e/2e.

Marketing worked out that books with "Dragon" in the title sell 25% better, or something to that effect, just like modules with the words "Dungeon Crawl" as a subtitle sold better. I think Dancey or someone posted something to that effect.

And yeah, dragon DNA everywhere is too much pepper spoiling the meal for me, too.

 

[broghammerj]

I have realized something. All the groups I have ever played with generally game in GH, FR or some sort of generic DnD world. I have only participated in one homebrew campaign in which the races were entirely original except for humans. I assumed generic DnD is the norm but perhaps that is unfounded. Najo, I assumed you were running a generic DnD game when you made your original comments.

To respond to the few of you who already responded to me:

It sounds as if you banned gnomes because they didn't fit into your campaign setting. I can understand that, it is a flavor decision. I would also infer that you would have banned any other race if they didn't fit in and that it simply wasn't "gnome hate". You're not DnD racists

The other resounding theme is that people are struggling to find ways to have Dragonborn and Teiflings fit into campaign settings like GH, FR, Eberron, etc. The issue I have with them as PCs, is everyone will want to play one because they're rare and supercool. That has a horrible impact on the game when you now have a group of super bizarre creatures running around in the campaign. My feeling is that if they're in core the race is likely to be uncommon or commonly encountered. I don't think rare or unique creatures should be PCs.

It becomes, "Hey I am the solitary drow on the surface" phenomenon. If you write Dragonborn or Tieflings into a new campaign setting.....well peace....but FR or GH....too strange.

 

[Derren]

The other resounding theme is that people are struggling to find ways to have Dragonborn and Teiflings fit into campaign settings like GH, FR, Eberron, etc. The issue I have with them as PCs, is everyone will want to play one because they're rare and supercool. That has a horrible impact on the game when you now have a group of super bizarre creatures running around in the campaign. My feeling is that if they're in core the race is likely to be uncommon or commonly encountered. I don't think rare or unique creatures should be PCs.

And why do you think dragonborn and tieflings will be rare and bizarre? When you are the DM you can decide yourself what status the races have in your campaign. When teh "tiefling kingdom" is just next door and the border towns will have a big tiefling population (a result of previous conflicts between the two kingdoms) they certainly won't be rare. Likewise the dragonborn could have a very martial culture and are favored mercenaries so you see them nearly everywhere as hired guards or instructors.
So you see just because dragonborn are a new core race in 4E doesn't mean that they have to just have appeared a few days ago out of nothing. They couldhave lived alongside humans for hundereds of years and in that case they are neither rare nor bizarre as humans would probably have got used to their looks by now.

Fitting them into existing campaigns wouldbe a bit harder but even there they don't have to be rare and bizarre. Just because every PC race so far looked like a human doesn't mean that all PC races have to. And don't forget that GH won't be the default setting for D&D anymore in 4Ed.